H.R. 2864 - What Could We Have Done Better?

Frankly, it is far too late to do anything of substance to influence the outcome of H.R. 2864. The lack of effective engagement from the ag-drone sector was one of the key motivators for the creation of the ADI.

That said, H.R. 2864 can be an event to push our industry to join together to ensure we are not caught flat footed again. Below is a list of ways we could have improved our strategies and efforts.

The recent legislative efforts surrounding drone regulation, particularly H.R. 2864, offer a valuable case study in effective policy engagement and advocacy. This situation highlights several key strategies that could have been employed from the bill's inception to better shape its outcome:

Advocating for amendments, especially to the 1603 Reimbursement program: There was a missed opportunity to push for modifications that would accommodate distributors, and potentially owners, of drones above a certain value threshold. Such amendments could have provided crucial flexibility for the agricultural sector while still addressing security concerns.

The 1603 Reimbursement program was created to allow communications carriers to be reimbursed for the economic harms caused by being placed on the Entities List. Unfortunately, the law underpinning the 1603 Reimbursement program cabined it only to telecoms infrastructure companies. But there is no reason that under the spirit of the law, it couldn’t have been amended to rationally cover distributors, if not customers, of DJI products over a certain price-point per unit. A condition already in that law for other materials.

Building a broader coalition: Efforts could have been made to engage smaller cosponsors and general members of the House to support amendments to the bill that were reflective of compromises that would have been quite helpful for us, e.g. revival of the 1603 Reimbursement Program, grants for US manufacturers, and more. This approach could have helped tailor the legislation to better balance security needs with the practical realities of drone usage in agriculture.

Promoting domestic manufacturing: While ADI does not take a position on which ag-drone companies are better or worse, one of the most important parts of engagement with lawmakers is making the best of what you have. There was potential to advocate for the inclusion of grants to support U.S. manufacturers and applicators, asking for steps to be taken to lessen the impact of H.R. 2864 if they insisted on passing it. This could have aligned the bill with broader economic goals while addressing security concerns.

Early engagement in FCC Rulemaking: Proactive involvement in the FCC's rulemaking process early in the year could have been crucial. This engagement might have secured carve-outs for agricultural use or implemented time-delays in the application of new rules, providing the industry with valuable adaptation time.

Addressing congressional concerns constructively: The pushback from First Responders around the nation about how critical DJI is to their work, when compared to the Committee Notes on the bill, makes clear that their efforts, while well-founded, likely confirmed the concerns of the bill’s authors, and so was actually counter productive. However, it also highlights the importance of engaging with legislative concerns in a way that aligns with their thought processes and proposes solutions that both parties are aligned on, rather than outright opposition. What would have been more effective was using them to push for research grants and tax rebates, etc.

Exploring legal challenges: It is extremely unlikely to succeed, but the framing of the FCC's terms could potentially be subject to legal challenges. Seeking injunctions could provide valuable time for the industry, particularly given the seasonal nature of agricultural work where even a delay of 6 to 12 months could be significant.

These strategies underscore the importance of early, multifaceted engagement in the legislative process. They demonstrate how industries can work within the system to shape policy outcomes that balance national security concerns with sector-specific needs. Moving forward, it's crucial for stakeholders in the agricultural drone industry to remain proactively engaged in policy discussions, leveraging both legislative and regulatory channels to ensure their perspectives are adequately represented.